North Star Writers Group

If you're like me and most other Americans, you have far better things to do than follow what presidential candidates are saying a year and a half before Election Day. But last Tuesday in New Hampshire, Senator Hillary Clinton said something that should frighten the daylights out of us all. To quote the AP wire story:

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an "ownership society" really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

First of all, she of all people should not talk about "special privileges," when she hasn't worked a real job or produced anything of real tangible value in her entire life, having lived parasitically off taxpayers and ridden the coattails of her political business partner - er, I mean husband - Bill ever since they both graduated from Yale Law School and began running for political office in perpetuity. Someone needs to remind her about glass houses and rock throwing.

That being said, Hillary did get one thing right. The United States is an "on your own" society. And that is precisely what makes it great, the "shining city on a hill" to which most of the world would like to emigrate. What Hillary denigrates as selfish heartlessness is what many of us call freedom, liberty and responsibility, without which this country wouldn't be what it is. And the moment it stops being an "on your own" society, freedom will have been brutally extinguished.

As for "the gap between rich and poor," I should certainly hope there is one. A person who is smart, educated, works hard and is thrifty should damn well be wealthier than one who's dumb, uneducated, sits on his butt and irresponsibly spends what little he has. It's simply the logical consequence of the behavior in which they've chosen to engage. The poor person described above is poor from his own bad choices, not because the wealthier one screwed him over somehow or took his money. In fact, there is no fiscal relationship between these individuals whatsoever. And to reward the one doing wrong by punishing the one doing right is far more immoral and tyrannical than any sort of "gap" could ever be.

And why she thinks anybody would continue to work hard and be productive when the reward for that effort is taken away is beyond me. There are numerous examples of this having failed every time it's been tried, from the Plymouth Bay Colony to the Soviet Union. In every case, the goods and services produced were completely inferior and the society nearly collapsed when the motive of self-interest was removed and people were forced to work only for the good of the collective. Why? Because it defies human nature to make people work solely for someone else's benefit. The Borg mentality doesn't work in real life any better than it did on “Star Trek: The Next Generation”.

Not to mention that being made to work without being compensated is the definition of slavery. Small wonder then that, throughout history, no one has willingly volunteered for such a thing. And it doesn't matter than you're only a 10 percent or 15 percent slave (or a one-third slave, for those paying the highest income tax rates). If government has a pre-emptive claim on even one penny of your wages or dollar of your assets, then in principle they have a claim on all of it. The only reason Hillary doesn't grab everything of yours is that you'd finally revolt against her. But don't think that's stopped her from thinking about how to do it.

That brings us to the final aspect of what makes her statement so frightening. It is simply the de facto elimination of private property. "We're all in it together" is simply code language for Hillary seizing the assets of anyone she deems as having more than they should – which is to say, anyone. Hillary presumes she has the authority to perpetrate blatant widespread stealing, because in her megalomaniacal view, everything already belongs to government and is therefore hers to redistribute as she alone sees fit.

Hillary's position is nothing short of pure communism and she is nothing more than a common thief and a Marxist thug. Sadly, it is also the position of her competitors – John Edwards and Barack Obama – and the party whose presidential nomination they all seek. That these beliefs pass for "mainstream" in today's Democratic Party is perhaps the most frightening thing of all.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary, June 2004

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # DKK063. Request permission to publish here.